Scandal Rocks Leigh Creek Energy UCG Proposal

After last month’s headline news that China New Energy was a fresh $20M buy into the Leigh Creek Energy Project in the Northern Flinders Ranges, new drama flares as previous Managing Director David Shearwood and other renegade shareholders want Justyn Peters off the board, writes Michael Henry.

Their proper channels of doing this via the rules were legally challenged and the explanation is provided by the Chairman:

Dear Shareholders,

Many of you will be aware that a group of shareholders (which included the previous Managing Director David Shearwood) (the “Group”) lodged a 249D notice with the Board proposing the removal of myself from the Board. The Board’s legal advisors considered the notice and provided advice that the notice was invalid and based on that advice the Board did not call a meeting. As your Chairman I feel compelled to communicate with all shareholders why the Board and I believe these current developments are not in the best interests of shareholders and are highly disruptive to your Company. Your Board will continue to act in your best interests applying sound corporate governance practice. Consideration of alternate board teams lacks planning and is premature in the extreme. If the Group want to propose a change to the Board and to propose alternate directors they have the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) to do so. The AGM is the appropriate meeting at which the shareholders may vote on the composition of the Board in an orderly and cost-effective manner. It is interesting that this disruption is taking place immediately after a successful capital raise where the Company worked diligently to raise funds to build the Pre-Commercial Demonstration (“PCD”) facility and commence demonstration of gas by the end of the year (subject to receipt of Government approvals). The demonstration of gas will be a major milestone for the Company and should result in a significant re-rating of the Company. The Board is committed to achieving this goal as quickly and as safely as possible. The Group is proposing to disrupt this process and that disruption will delay the demonstration of gas. The agitation by these shareholders and the issuing of the (invalid) notice have already diverted time and resources of the Company in dealing with this Group. I am not the only shareholder who questions why the Group would alter the composition of the Board that has raised the funds required (subject to shareholder approval of Tranche 3) to deliver the PCD facility. At all times your Board has acted in the best interests of all shareholders and not just the perceived self-interest of a particular group of shareholders. The work that the Board and management have previously undertaken, as set out in previous ASX announcements, has enabled the Company to become fully funded (subject to shareholder approval of Tranche 3) and as announced this week the contracting for long lead items for the PCD facility has already commenced . It is beyond me why any group of shareholders would want to change the composition of the Board and jeopardise the demonstration of gas as soon as possible. The Board appreciates the support of the vast majority of shareholders and we look forward to updating you over the next few months on our progress with the PCD facility.

This raises the pertinent question: for what reason the revolt which is briefly alluded to in today’s news from the Advertiser:

While the ABC coverage of the largest environmental disaster in Queensland’s history has disappeared from their radar, other sources confirm the Queensland EPA v Linc Energy Liquidators remains strong. The ABC while breaking for public benefit the largest alleged case of willful negligence by corporate executives , has now gone silent on the story. The same question can be asked of the SA media considering the “technical capacity” of the Leigh Creek Energy Project is recycled from Linc and Carbon Energy?

The Advertiser misquotes Mr Justyn Peters previous role at Linc Energy as Investment Relations when he was in fact Environmental Management, no doubt borrowing from his experience within the Queensland EPA prior to his joining Linc Energy. Is this why the ABC remains silent on the case and is this why Peters was not listed as one of the executives called to face charges?

The public deserves further and more in-depth coverage of this story by the ABC. which has sadly impacted the lives of hundreds of people at Chinchilla in the now expanded 300 KM square ‘no go zone’ as the outfall from the underground coal (UCG) gas experiment expands and the South Australian Government also remains silent on the situation.

Addition to the story: (June 13)

The reason for dissension of Shearwater remains a mystery, the company has thrown a second notice in the trash bin, meaning the resolution or outcome must be left until the next AGM. As the previous story ( Marathon – Arkaroola ) is also an intriguing story of ALP participation, the meeting of the Treasurer, China New Energy and Leigh Creek Energy recently is suggestive of something but what exactly is not clear…the next company announcement illustrates the relationship and if the words are read correctly implies an imminent decision to meet the schedule of LCK prior to the submission of an application to extract gas for the purpose of flaring – if this is the case SA enters the Queensland danger zone of the Chinchilla pilot plant UCG disaster so all eyes will be on the Greens next response to this development.

Invalid Section 249D Notice
Leigh Creek Energy Ltd (ASX: LCK) (“the Company”) advises that following a careful review and consideration of the documents delivered to the company to requisition a meeting of shareholders under Section 249D of the Corporations Act (see ASX announcement dated the 6th June 2017) (“Notice”) the Directors have determined that due to the irregularities in the respect of the Notice, the Notice is invalid and does not comply with Section 249D of the Corporations Act.
As a result of this, the Directors have determined not to convene a general meeting of the shareholders based on the invalid Notice.
Jordan Mehrtens, Company Secretary|

As they say the devil is in the detail and a brilliant law site highly recommended picked up the story that the media left behind. This case of willful negligence is so far showing the Australian courts are remaining robust in the face of the ‘cut and run’ approach adopted by Linc Energy liquidators:

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND

On 13 May 2016, the Department of Environment & Heritage Protection (respondent) issued an environmental protection order (EPO) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EPA) to Linc Energy Ltd (Linc) whilst it was in administration. The EPO prohibited Linc from disposing of, and obliged Linc to maintain, the infrastructure on the site necessary to ensure compliance with the EPO. Liquidators were subsequently appointed to Linc.

On 30 June 2016, the liquidators gave notice under section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) disclaiming property which was subject to the EPO. The liquidators argued that the effect of the disclaimer was to terminate Linc’s interest in, and liabilities in respect of, the disclaimed property and thereby discharged Linc’s future compliance with the EPO.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

The liquidators applied for directions under section 511 of the Act that they were justified in not causing Linc to comply with the EPO. Central to their argument was that any liabilities arising under the EPA to comply with the EPO are inconsistent with the termination of that liability arising from the disclaimer scheme under the Act.

COURT’S DISCUSSION ON INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN ACTS

The liquidators argued that the Act prevailed over the EPA to the extent of any inconsistency.

Section 5G(3) of the Act provides that where a direct inconsistency exists between a provision of a State law and the Corporations legislation, the State law will apply only where the State provision operated, immediately before the Act commenced, despite the operation of the Corporations Law of the State (in force at that time).

The relevant law of the State is sections 358 and 361 of the EPA and the Corporations Law of the State is sections 568 and 568D of the Corporations Law of Queensland (as it then was prior to the enactment of the Act).

The respondent relied on section 9 of the Corporations (Ancillary Provisions) Act 2001 (Qld) (CAPA) under which any relevant law of the State that is inconsistent with a provision of a national scheme law has effect despite the provision of the national scheme law (i.e. the Act).

The relevant test to determine whether provisions are inconsistent is a question of whether the State law would “alter, impair or detract from the operation of the law of the Commonwealth Parliament”, under section 109 of The Constitution.

The relevant provisions of the EPA oblige Linc to comply with the EPO (and create liability in the event of non-compliance) in respect of the disclaimed property in a way which would be directly inconsistent with the liquidators’ power to terminate Linc’s interest in and liabilities in respect of the disclaimed property under sections 568 and 568D. Accordingly, section 9(1) of the CAPA declares the provisions of the EPA to operate despite the provisions of the Act.

LIQUIDATORS AS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS UNDER EPA

The Court also noted that the liquidators were personally liable to see that Linc complies with the EPO, given they would be considered an “executive officer” of Linc under the EPA.

WERE THE LIQUIDATORS JUSTIFIED IN NOT CAUSING LINC TO COMPLY WITH OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EPO?

The Court directed the liquidators were not justified in causing Linc not to comply with the EPO.

The relevant provisions of the EPA under which the EPO was issued had the effect of impairing the liquidators right to disclaim property under the Act.

The effect of this decision will see the costs of complying with an EPO ranking ahead of the typical priority claims under section 556 of the Act.

This case identifies a specific scenario in which the liquidators’ power of disclaimer could not be used to avoid an environmental protection order. The Court has noted that the effect of this direction is confined to the specific set of facts and may not be helpful for other facts or provisions. However, liquidators will need to be mindful of any similar environmental protection orders or powers in the future to ensure that there is sufficient funding available to comply with these types of environmental obligations rather than rely upon their power to disclaim the relevant property.

A notice of appeal was filed on 10 May 2017, so watch this space.

The content of this publication is for reference purposes only. It is current at the date of publication. This content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be obtained before taking any action based on this publication.

LIQUIDATORS of Linc Energy said on Friday they have applied to Singapore Exchange (SGX) for a one-year extension for the submission of a proposal to resume trading in the company’s shares.

The submission deadline was initially March 29 this year, and the liquidators have now asked for it to be deferred until March 29, 2018.

The move to submit the proposal came after Linc Energy’s shares were suspended on March 30, 2016.

The liquidators also sought waivers for requirements to prepare financial statements and an annual report, as well as to hold an annual general meeting.

The company said the liquidators have been monitoring the criminal proceedings presented against Linc Energy in Australia.

“As the proceedings are ongoing with no clear conclusion on the outcome, the liquidators are unable to ascertain the financial impact and legal implications arising from the same on the company. Accordingly, the liquidators cannot engage potential investors and other stakeholders to explore the various options for the company to exit liquidation at this time,” it said.

Separately, Linc Energy also gave other updates.

It said the sale of mining development licence 361 – the Pentland coal tenement in the Galilee Basin – is expected to be completed by Sept 30 this year.

In terms of sale of land, the liquidators have realised two of Linc Energy’s five real property assets in Chinchilla, Queensland. The remaining three properties are subject to an ongoing sales process.

On May 5, 2017, the liquidators entered into a deal for the sale of the debt owed by United Queensland Resources to Linc Energy. The sale is due to be completed at the end of June 2017.

The liquidators said they continue to progress recoveries from the company’s remaining assets, including the SGX-listed shell as well as loans owed by US subsidiaries that are currently subject to a Chapter 11 process.

Following orders made by the Supreme Court of Queensland that the liquidators are not justified in causing Linc Energy to not comply with the Environmental Protection Order issued by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the liquidators have filed an appeal.

37 Commentson "Scandal Rocks Leigh Creek Energy UCG Proposal"

Thats a great update and yes why is the ABC not covering the Chinchilla case ??? Also, why did Tom Koutsantonis give $5M to this mob after they spoiled the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary? Will he give them $5M after they wreck the Flinders!?

“Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says there was no legal obligation to make the payment because under state law the right to explore does not automatically confer a right to mine.

But the goodwill payment recognised that the company incurred significant costs exploring the area” , he said.

As has been stated before not all comments can be posted, most of them are, others are delayed as it takes time for volunteer editors to check links and decide if they are relevant, correct and not defamatory. Most readers are providing links – THANKS – simple theories so long as they don’t target individuals without substantiation…please be patient…

Sounds like Tom makes serious threats to the public servants and then gets away with it and blames them later…the old ministerial responsibility argument raging all over SA:

“The ICAC report contained a transcript of an interview with Renewal SA’s former chief operating officer and later acting CEO Michael Buchan.

Buchan, whom ICAC boss Bruce Lander found to have engaged in “maladministration”, said Koutsantonis did not direct him specifically to engineer a deal: “It was more along the lines of a raft of expletives and followed by a ‘Pull your finger out and get it done for me”

Lulu – The $5M gift by Tom and the trail of ALP politicians a mile long is my guess, read the front page of the Advertiser today, ICAC is secret, so secret deals etc easy as pie in SA…yeah…or another angle I’m missing?

“It is interesting that this disruption is taking place immediately after a successful capital raise, where the company worked diligently to raise funds to build the pre-commercial demonstration facility and commence demonstration of gas by the end of the year (subject to receipt of government approvals).

“The demonstration of gas will be a major milestone for the company and should result in a significant re-rating of the company.

“It is beyond me why any group of shareholders would want to change the composition of the board and jeopardise the demonstration of gas as soon as possible.’’

Mark Parnell gave me the clues re these monkey cowboys raiding the sharemarket under the Marathon banner…and then the surprise discovery of waste product and oh my dear, scandal, the end of the project…that’s how simple the theory is…anyone that dont get it now would have rocks in their head..

Well Rosemary, if we had such an award you would be given the SHERLOCK HOLMES Rosettamoon Award for media analysis excellence, but you do fail on minor detail…the company in question which was Marathon Resources (tick) is now Leigh Creek Energy (LCK). not Leigh Creek Gas…!!!

May I also point out you placed your comment on RM’s about page, not the actual story, if you wish to become a story contributor please follow the steps of the ‘about; page..not having fun with you Rosemary, your analysis is excellent!

I agree RM that Rosemary may deserve the award but I would love to exchange notes with her as she seems to smell the same rat that I smell…can RM privately exchange information between posters?

So, leaving the Sherlock Award clearly to Rosemary I just wish to share more background on Marathon and more shady connections with due respect to the Talbot family of course…a lot of my media comments don’t get published and I suspect this won’t as well, so I am fine with that…blah blah..a good test if RM is really independent or just more nonsense scallywag self serving media….???

Here is the story and it raises more questions about Marathon and thus Leigh Creek Energy, yes?, or am I nuts?

The death of Ken Talbot in an airplane crash puts a stop to the legal proceedings that have been ongoing over corruption charges, and the murky history of uranium miner Marathon resources.

The charges concerned $300,000 allegedly paid by Talbot to Nuttall while Nuttall was a Minister of the Crown. Nuttall was sentenced in July this year to seven year’s jail…………

Arkaroola uranium hunter on bribery charges, The Independent Weekly, HENDRIK GOUT17 Oct, 2009 The owner and director of the largest shareholder in the company which the state government allows to explore the Arkaroola wilderness for uranium, Marathon Resources, is awaiting trial on charges of having bribed a government minister.

Ken Talbot of Talbot Group Investments Pty Ltd is accused of corruptly making payments to Gordon Nuttall, then a Labor minister in the Queensland Government…………In December 2008, Gordon Nuttall and Ken Talbot were committed to stand trial on 35 corruption charges.

The charges concerned $300,000 allegedly paid by Talbot to Nuttall while Nuttall was a Minister of the Crown. Nuttall was sentenced in July this year to seven year’s jail…………

Marathon was found guilty in early 2008 of illegally dumping radioactive waste in a variety of locations throughout the Arkaroola wilderness sanctuary.

The sanctuary, part of the northern Flinders Ranges, is world renowned for its spectacular scenery and is one of SA’s premier ecotourism destinations. It is a high mountain refuge surrounded by vast desert plains and the nationally threatened yellow-footed rock-wallaby’s last stronghold .

Paul. I don’t think you are nuts at all, these are valuable links to the story and of no doubt benefit to all South Australians.

The RM editorial committee meets next week and will discuss the concept of consensual sharing with security provided in that meeting and seek legal advice and web security advice on how that could occur..its a good concept but needs to be discussed before contacting posters about the concept…from the information you have covered its sounds like you have valid concerns and RM is not about suppressing the truth but distributing the truth…and yes, you referenced your comment which is helpful as well…my advice is to become a contributor to the news on the site…quality of news is declining rapidly and your comments will not be edited out unless they are rude or defamatory or unsubstantiated …rest assured you are not nuts…your contributions to RM are welcome and comments were only open last week so please understand delays depending on volunteer efforts to keep the news site running !

Contributors please be patient.,,the site has received several emails and comments along the lines of the comments received…they are equally scandalous but RM is seeking legal advice before publishing or responding to incoming comments and emails. received…the post has been sent to government SA trusted politicians , but a decision has been made to publish no further comments until legal advice is received.. please be assured your comments will be published in coming days.

RM invites comment to this site from David Shearwater or other parties to expand the story.

Great to see this out there beyond the control of crooked corporations and self interested greedy politicians.
All this is ignored by the fake mainstream media which is nothing but a propaganda machine.

Another comment, i fact checked your claim that Advertiser got facts wrong, RM was right, but not exactly right:

“Our Gereral Manager of Environment and Government Affairs, Justin Peters, spent seven years with the Australian Environmental Protection Authority. He is an attorney, knows this space inside and out, and is providing tremendous value. Our General Manager of Underground Coal Gasification, Don Schofield, was actually involved in an early, underground coal gasification project in Colorado back in the 1970s. ”

Terrific comments from everyone – with the benefit of hindsight a better headline would have been Tom Koutsantonis – The $5 Million Man…anyway, latest I read is that Carbon Energy have arisen from their QLD grave and are going to China to have a crack at underground gas over there..

The media have covered well the regional opposition, but where did this leave the Chincilla farmers who objected well before the event, the LINC executives brought before the court on charges of wilful negligence to the health of people and the environment and then they challenge this based on the Corporations Act? We are excused on the basis of the lack of our embodiment, the body without the spirit, it’s a great case to follow and a test case of whether corporate law can extinguish state, sovereign and common laws…

So, I agree the story is not being told at the level it deserves but would suggest pointing out the more local and immediate consequences of the flaring and combustion of underground coal, what are the safety consequences , what are implications in relation to the mine site closure?

A good update on the story but maybe you are asking the wrong questions?

When is the flare date ( nice pun) where is the application for Moomba gas pipeline and where are the base line results of the company and when will they be made public for examination?

Not criticism just suggestions on where the enquiry could go if you do a follow up story or if the readers have more clues.

I agree with the Greens parties, farmers, and communities that gas mining that compromises air and water is bad gas and we don’t need it…write to your politicians and get the answers , there is great links but too much speculation to date on this thread, ‘where’s the beef?’

They was given a PACE grant too but no one knows how much…and Marathon donated money to the ALP..what a crook system!!!!!!

The Budget and Finance Committee was told that Marathon Resources received a PACE grant. As the Hon. Mr Holloway infers, we do not know what Marathon used that for—whether it was for that particular lease in that area, or elsewhere. We also do not know, because the government will not tell us, exactly how much Marathon Resources was given under the PACE grant. We do know that Marathon was given money but we do not know how much.

Insightful article and comments! Its clear this is an ALP run program and I will contribute a couple of observations not covered in the article or comments and invite feedback as to whether posters agree or otherwise. 1/ The Marathon exploration coincided with the expansion of the Beverley Uranium Mine. This to me highlights political incentive to detract from one issue to another issue.

Read this NewMatilda article and you will see that Schact to dismantled the ALP 3 Mines policy was on the Marathon boat – quite convenient really hey? Just a grab from the article makes the point I am making that this is a public attention honey pot program to steer the media and public into a useless direction and meaningless campaign..:
A number of prominent ALP members have connections to the mining company. Former Labor senator John Quirke is a registered lobbyist for Marathon, while another former Labor senator Chris Schacht is a company director. Labor powerbroker and union heavyweight Paul Howes has also lent his support to mining in Arkaroola.

So is the party too close to Marathon for comfort?

Greens MLC Mark Parnell thinks so. He told Adelaide Now in December that the project was being pushed by “a conga-line of Labor luminaries”. “The only reason it is still alive is due to powerful and influential lobbying by ALP mates,” he said. “Governments should make decisions on the basis of sound advice, not the sound of highly paid lobbyists whispering in their ears.”

The decision to award Marathon another exploration licence comes on the heels of another decision last year to expand the nearby Beverly Uranium Mine. This pressure to expand is coming from international buyers. Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson’s enthusiasm for expanding the industry is proven, with public support for exporting uranium to India. The US, which has long worked out its own deposits, is our biggest uranium customer.

Nailed it mate! So much fracking over the Cooper basin it aint funny and that all over the GAB..Wheres the Greens and national interest in this??!!! The whole lot will end up in jail they going – I won’t be voting for no one next year!

THE prosecution in the case against five former executives of Linc Energy has promised to provide more documents to the defendants by the end of the month.

The matter was heard in the Dalby Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

All five defendants, who face charges of failing to ensure Linc Energy complied with the Environmental Protection Act had legal representation via telephone.

Prosecutor Ralph Devlin QC outlined several documents that were outstanding, and that were anticipated to be handed to the defendants by July 31.

Mr Devlin outlined the unusual nature of the case, as the trial against Linc Energy as a company is scheduled to begin on October 30, in Brisbane, and stated the prosecution believed it would be fair to wait for the result of that case before pursuing individual charges.

However lawyers for the defendants said the process was causing stress and was not allowing the defendants to prepare for a possible trial.

No brief of evidence has been handed to any defendants to date and the prosecution is still gathering material.

Magistrate Robbie Davies highlighted the unusual nature of the case, citing the issues both sides were facing.

“It is an unsatisfactory situation but it is also a very unusual situation,” Mr Davies said.

Last announcement on ASX is company hopes to flare in 2017 – even though they have no approvals – the sharemarket is not impressed at all – this has MARATHON share scam written all over it – so much for the big Chinese investment, the price has more than halved to 10 cents since this deal was broke…very fishy business going on!

This guy is a well know crook, anyone that lost money in astra, including my uncle will tell you this – how he is able to legally be in involved in a company is the question, this is terrible to see him ripping people off again!!!!!!!!!!

In 2011, InDaily revealed that Astra Resources’ bold claims to control billions of dollars worth of resource, technology and property assets worldwide were based on letters of intent and memoranda of understanding.

Its promise to list on various top-tier international stock exchanges has not materialised, yet Astra announced on May 13 that it had applied to list on the Canadian Securities Exchange.

Last year the company’s auditor in Britain, GSK Accountancy, questioned the company’s ability to continue as a going concern, citing $28.2 million in accumulated losses.

Company documents showed it had around $300,000 in the bank at the end of the 2013 financial year.

It has never released a prospectus, promising on its own website to release one “in mid-2014”.

The company’s directors from that period have resigned and been replaced.

Daniel Justyn Peters, David Shearwood and Maxwell Venning joined the board of directors late last year and Norman Hilton and Adele Bikarovski joined the board in May this year.

Sorry to hear about the Astra losses, I doubt any of the public are losing on LCK, its looking like a government and corporate funded scam – I would guess ICAC or ASIO would be investigating them and surprised as above thats its not a 4Corners story.

This Daniel Justyn Peters seems to be immune from the law wherever he goes..check this:

IN THE MATTER OF:
THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 198 1
and
IN THE MATTER OF:
DANIEL JUSTYN DOUGLAS PETERS
FINDINGS OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY
TRIBUNAL
The practitioner has pleaded guilty to a charge of unprofessional conduct in
that:
1 Between May 1996 and September 1997 the practitioner practised the
profession of law whilst not holding a practising certificate issued and in
force under the Act contrary to s.2 l(1) of the Act.
2 From May 1996 the practitioner held himself out as being entitled to
practise the profession of the law whilst not holding a practising
certificate issued and in force under the Act, contrary to s.21(1) of the
Act.
3 Since being admitted to practise on 20 December 1993 the practitioner
has failed to file a Trust Account Audit Report with the Supreme Court
of South Australia contrary to s.33 of the Act.
4 The practitioner has failed to notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court
of South Australia and the Law Society within one month of a closure of
his place of business contrary to Regulation 7 of the regulations under
the Legal Practitioners Act 198 1.
4A The practitioner has failed to notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court
of South Australia and the Law Society within one month of his new
place of business contrary to Regulation 7 of the regulations under the
Legal Practitioners Act 198 1.
5 Being a person called upon by the complainant on 30 October 1997 to
respond to a complaint made in September 1997, the practitioner failed
or neglected to cooperate with the complainant by responding to the
complainant and has never provided a response to the complainant and
further has never provided responses to notices dated 6 April 1998
issued to the practitioner pursuant to Sections 76(3) and 76(4A) of the
Act contrary to s.76(4)(b) and s.76(4)(b) of the Act.
The practitioner was admitted in South Australia on 20 December 1993 and
held a practising certificate for the calendar years 1994 and 1995. The Tribunal
received a letter from the Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court dated 16
March 1998 indicating that since 3 1 December 1995 the practitioner has not
applied for a practising certificate and has not informed the Supreme Court that
he has ceased to practise, nor has he ever filed either a statutory declaration for
not holding trust monies or a Trust Audit Account Report and had not notified
the Court that he had closed his trust account.

It was an easy find on web last year after the LINC Chinchilla disaster news, and I downloaded it – I have since not been able to find it on the web???!!! Looks like someone has been cleaning up after Mr Peters ?

So this LCK blueprint for disaster is in the approval process and the good Dr Shearman is steering public attention to something that is not happening and seems to forget the massive fracking happening in the Cooper basin…is the GAB not important doctor or not relevant to your story? Why is the SE Fracking non event getting media attention while the Linc energy connected project in the Flinders not getting media attention??

The ABC has been contacted again today concerning readers comments. The ABC has been forwarded information regarding the story on many occasions. Please write to the ABC and urge them to cover the story – they have also stopped coverage of the Linc Energy v EPA QLD court case and this has also been conveyed to two ABC journalists who said they would follow up and have not ?

Brilliant detective work Wayne!
I just tried googling “Daniel Justyn Douglas Peters’ and the fingerprint of the site is still there but no cache or archive due to robo text preventing it on the site. Makes you wonder about how much other information is being deleted from government websites and who is doing it?

Cheers Paul, guess what, the phantom has struck again – fingerprint now gone from wwww, no worries, finger print recorded : ) I agree the web is turning into a joke – good reminder for folks to save what they see before its…history!